The Amazing D200.

Started Jun 13, 2013 | Discussions
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,161Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to n057, Jul 22, 2013

n057 wrote:

I did not give it a second look. My mind is pretty set...

OK

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,024Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 22, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

n057 wrote:

I did not give it a second look. My mind is pretty set...

OK

-- hide signature --

Stacey

-- hide signature --

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,787Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 22, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

I've just bought a D200 to go with my D700 and am looking forward to testing side by side (I have a very demanding low light situation that I hope the D200 will work in).

Why would you pick a D200 for low light work? O.o Of course it won't work -well- in low light. In reasonable light, when iso400 or lower can be used, it should work fine.

I'm sick of trying to argue if it's the CCD sensor, the bayer filter tuning or something further down the pipeline. No one has any way of knowing why certain cameras record colors in different ways in different light but they do. I happen to like the color rendering I get from my olympus E1 and this D200. Maybe it's a coincidence that both happen to have CCD sensors, doesn't really matter to me if I like the images they output at iso 400 and lower, especially shooting skin tones and red flowers. For me the D200 is like a 10MP E1

-- hide signature --

Stacey

+1. I will echo what you just said, again. Nobody knows WHAT exactly makes the CCD output the way it is, and i don't care either. When i sold my D200 and purchased the D7000 the difference was CLEARLY there to me, regarding tanish skin tones detail, texture and color. I too buy cameras not for the reason to complicate my life even more, or to perform tests over and over and over. I just shoot for pleasure and i want a camera with great and quick output. Again, mainly skin tones for me.

I have no doubt that my former D7000 could "almost" match the D200 and my current Fuji S5 (if D7000 is used properly), but its output is still just NOT exact and easy to accomplish. And besides, i don't EVER recall getting a washed out output with my former D200 ether.

CCD kicks ass!

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HRonen
Regular MemberPosts: 215Gear list
Like?
Re: The Amazing D200.
In reply to PhotoKhan, Jul 23, 2013

Four eyes

For six years I have been using the D200 with little variations. Settings at default, shooting mostly at 200 ISO, underexposing images by 1/2 f/stop.

 HRonen's gear list:HRonen's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marcio_napoli
Contributing MemberPosts: 787
Like?
It's all about nuances.
In reply to HRonen, Jul 23, 2013

These CCD debates are always interesting.

A previous forum member asked for any real, concrete proof that CCD is better, and the truth is: it's really hard to prove in such terms, as we're not talking about specific, measurable numbers.

It's not a more megapixels or DR thing.

It's a certain look, how CCD renders an image, and that translates into a different visual end product. I'm talking about nuances.

Some people see these differences, some people don't. Simple as that.

To some people (for whatever reason) that difference seems to be obvious, but for others, it really is not.

And that happens all the time!

For example, is German glass actually sharper? Maybe not!

I've seen Leica M lenses producing lots of CA, and failing to beat Nikon lenses in resolution charts...

So why is German glass so acclaimed?

Mostly because there's a certain look (bokeh, micro contrast, etc) that's not measurable in charts, and makes a world of difference to those who really care about this stuff.

Personally, I've always thought German lenses were overrated until the day I started shooting with a Schneider Krauznach prime.

From that day on, I understood there's really a special look going on.

But we're talking about very subtle nuances.

It's never that obvious to see.

So is the case of CCD vs CMOS.

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,161Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances.
In reply to marcio_napoli, Jul 23, 2013

marcio_napoli wrote:

These CCD debates are always interesting.

A previous forum member asked for any real, concrete proof that CCD is better, and the truth is: it's really hard to prove in such terms, as we're not talking about specific, measurable numbers.

It's not a more megapixels or DR thing.

It's a certain look, how CCD renders an image, and that translates into a different visual end product. I'm talking about nuances.

Some people see these differences, some people don't. Simple as that.

To some people (for whatever reason) that difference seems to be obvious, but for others, it really is not.

And that happens all the time!

For example, is German glass actually sharper? Maybe not!

I've seen Leica M lenses producing lots of CA, and failing to beat Nikon lenses in resolution charts...

So why is German glass so acclaimed?

Mostly because there's a certain look (bokeh, micro contrast, etc) that's not measurable in charts, and makes a world of difference to those who really care about this stuff.

Personally, I've always thought German lenses were overrated until the day I started shooting with a Schneider Krauznach prime.

From that day on, I understood there's really a special look going on.

But we're talking about very subtle nuances.

It's never that obvious to see.

So is the case of CCD vs CMOS.

+1 This is exactly the case. I have an old rolleicord with a schneider xenar. A tessar type lens not normally considered earth shattering but the look of the images from this camera are amazing. Can I scientifically prove they are great? Nope but they look awesome to me

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marcio_napoli
Contributing MemberPosts: 787
Like?
Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to marcio_napoli, Jul 23, 2013

In case anyone is interested, I've uploaded a bunch of DMF CCD files, from a Leaf Aptus 5 back.

It's from the older 22mp generation (really old technology by now).

A relatively "inexpensive" entry to DMF, but you can already see that special CCD look in spades in these shots.

Please, forgive any camera shake or landscape shots at f2.8.

With 2 exceptions, those were all hand held (some as low as 1/30 shutter speed).

Here are the links:

http://www.4shared.com/zip/irngRMr1/01_phase_one_leaf_aptus_5_dng.html

http://www.4shared.com/zip/hUVlp4co/02_phase_one_leaf_aptus_5_dng.html

http://www.4shared.com/zip/bu7rnyKn/03_phase_one_leaf_aptus_5_dng.html

http://www.4shared.com/zip/wL4UBKlr/04_phase_one_leaf_aptus_5_dng.html

Even with 2005 technology (or earlier), that CCD look is very desirable. IMHO, beats 2010+ CMOS technology for base ISO work.

All the best,

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 23, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

I've just bought a D200 to go with my D700 and am looking forward to testing side by side (I have a very demanding low light situation that I hope the D200 will work in).

Why would you pick a D200 for low light work? O.o Of course it won't work -well- in low light. In reasonable light, when iso400 or lower can be used, it should work fine.

1) I like to push the envelope.

2) I want to try Nikon-size APS-C lens amplification because I can use existing glass.

3) A D200 can be had cheaply for the task

4) Because I can. 

Trust me, I won't be complaining if it doesn't do what I want.  I will eBay it, or keep it just for fun if I can find anything, even just the slightest hint of something identifiable as "CCD Magic" from it.  Hype doesn't sway me.

I'm sick of trying to argue if it's the CCD sensor, the bayer filter tuning or something further down the pipeline. No one has any way of knowing why certain cameras record colors in different ways in different light but they do. I happen to like the color rendering I get from my olympus E1 and this D200. Maybe it's a coincidence that both happen to have CCD sensors, doesn't really matter to me if I like the images they output at iso 400 and lower, especially shooting skin tones and red flowers. For me the D200 is like a 10MP E1

That's great.

I have never found a camera (at least an interchangeable lens camera) that displayed images differently except according to the quality of lens fitted. I can demonstrate the high highlight headroom on the Fuji S5 Pro, but it is very hard to reliably show sensor variations other than that.

I'm glad you like the Olympus D200 - you were saying you were thinking of getting another one in the Fuji forum a few weeks ago - did you do it?

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to n057, Jul 23, 2013

n057 wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Why would you pick a D200 for low light work? O.o Of course it won't work -well- in low light. In reasonable light, when iso400 or lower can be used, it should work fine.

Generally no, but there are cases where it is acceptable. How about this?

You can see more here .

Yeah, I looked before I leaped.

Your stuff convinced me to try, but only because the Fuji Super CCD is demonstrably different (=better) than similar sized  CMOS sensors, even much newer ones.  I'm hoping there will be something I can quantify abouyt the D200, but I am not expecting miracles.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 23, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

I guess what I was saying was, if I was going out to shoot in low light and had to choose between my D200 and my D7000, I would use the D7K. I don't think anyone would argue the D7000 is cleaner at high ISO.

But I have a D700, not a 7000.

I need lens amplification in my regular shooting environement.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to marcio_napoli, Jul 23, 2013

marcio_napoli wrote:

In case anyone is interested, I've uploaded a bunch of DMF CCD files, from a Leaf Aptus 5 back.

It's from the older 22mp generation (really old technology by now).

A relatively "inexpensive" entry to DMF, but you can already see that special CCD look in spades in these shots.

Unless you have matching/identical CMOS or other sensor images for comparison, all you are showing is the quality of the sensor size and lens attached, along with the attendant processing.

You are just promoting another case of "The Emporer's New Clothes" - I loved that fairy story.  Who would have thought that rational men and women of the 21st century would be so easily caught up in extolling the same sort of imaginary benefits.

Afterall, if there is no difference between the images from  CMOS and CCD cameras, especially when someone claims there are, it's got to be all in the imagination, hasn't it?

Even with 2005 technology (or earlier), that CCD look is very desirable. IMHO, beats 2010+ CMOS technology for base ISO work.

How can you show or say that it is the CCD technology at work, unless you have matching, but inferior, CMOS images from the same system?

You cannot.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jimoyer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,627Gear list
Like?
Re: Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

I don't think anyone is saying the CCD is superior to the CMOS, only that they like the images produced by (in their opinion think they're "superior") the D200 and by extension it's CCD.  Just because you aren't seeing what some others do doesn't mean it isn't there....only that you can't see it.

 jimoyer's gear list:jimoyer's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D7100 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances.
In reply to marcio_napoli, Jul 23, 2013

marcio_napoli wrote:

These CCD debates are always interesting.

A previous forum member asked for any real, concrete proof that CCD is better, and the truth is: it's really hard to prove in such terms, as we're not talking about specific, measurable numbers.

It's not a more megapixels or DR thing.

It's a certain look, how CCD renders an image, and that translates into a different visual end product. I'm talking about nuances.

And conveniently, nunaces cannot be defined.

However, the best way to evaluate is a blind test - the same image from CCD and CMOS, but with EXIF stripped. That's when nuances weaken...

Some people see these differences, some people don't. Simple as that.

Just like the emporer's new clothes.

To some people (for whatever reason) that difference seems to be obvious, but for others, it really is not.

And that happens all the time!

But we're talking about very subtle nuances.

It's never that obvious to see.

So is the case of CCD vs CMOS.

Not when you look at Fuji's Super CCD, as used in the 2/3" sensor (how tiny is that?) and check out the red swatch in the I-R Comparometer

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,462Gear list
Like?
Re: Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to jimoyer, Jul 23, 2013

jimoyer wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying the CCD is superior to the CMOS

Actually, some are...

, only that they like the images produced by (in their opinion think they're "superior") the D200 and by extension it's CCD.

I see.  I'm not part of the club, so I cannot wear the emporer's new clothes.  For that I am glad. 

I'm afraid that I cannot see his fine new clothes, either.

Just because you aren't seeing what some others do doesn't mean it isn't there....only that you can't see it.

That's a great explanation, jimoyer.

But it doesn't wash.  If it's there, it's identifiable and quantifiable.

Otherwsie, it's just hype.  Like that fine suit of invisible clothes.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,161Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

I guess what I was saying was, if I was going out to shoot in low light and had to choose between my D200 and my D7000, I would use the D7K. I don't think anyone would argue the D7000 is cleaner at high ISO.

But I have a D700, not a 7000.

I need lens amplification in my regular shooting environement.

OK let me try again: I don't think anyone would argue a D700 is cleaner at high ISO.

If you are looking for a DX camera for low light use, a D200 isn't the right choice given today's options.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,161Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:


Maybe it's a coincidence that both happen to have CCD sensors, doesn't really matter to me if I like the images they output at iso 400 and lower, especially shooting skin tones and red flowers. For me the D200 is like a 10MP E1

That's great.

I have never found a camera (at least an interchangeable lens camera) that displayed images differently except according to the quality of lens fitted.

Well then you aren't likely to see what we are talking about here.

If you need good low light in a DX body and can't see the difference in the output from one camera to another, get the one with the cleanest high iso performance.

I'm glad you like the Olympus D200 - you were saying you were thinking of getting another one in the Fuji forum a few weeks ago - did you do it?

Olympus D200? And I've never posted to the Fuji forum so have no clue to what you are talking about here either.

And we will see if you bash this D200 after trying to use it in low light or not It's pretty clear this is NOT a camera choice anyone would recommend as a low light marvel.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,161Gear list
Like?
Re: Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

Just because you aren't seeing what some others do doesn't mean it isn't there....only that you can't see it.

That's a great explanation, jimoyer.

But it doesn't wash. If it's there, it's identifiable and quantifiable.

Otherwsie, it's just hype. Like that fine suit of invisible clothes.

No one is asking you to buy into this. If you can't see the difference, then you don't and should buy the newest highest tech model available. Like the one DXo or other scientific tests say is best. The D200 isn't that.

Not everything in life is scientifically measurable as being better or worse.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marcio_napoli
Contributing MemberPosts: 787
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances.
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

Hi Trevor,

Well, if you want, I can post a D700 vs Leaf Aptus 5 comparison.

I prefer not to, because it's an apple vs mushroom comparison.

Both are at base ISO (which means ISO 200 for the Nikon, and 25 for the Leaf back), and the sensor size (and resolution) is clearly on different leagues.

I gotta say that the digital back is vastly superior, IMO.

But is it a fair comparison? I don't know... maybe it is? Maybe it isn't?

D700 was CMOS cutting edge technology in 2008, and had the sensor that changed the landscape in digital photography (first time ever we saw "clean" ISO 6400, and numbers like ISO 25k).

On the other hand, the Leaf Aptus is (probably) 2004- technology, an easily beats the Nikon.

As I said, an apple vs mushroom comparison.

But if you want, I can post it later.

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jimoyer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,627Gear list
Like?
Re: Some CCD files for download (DMF files).
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 23, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

jimoyer wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying the CCD is superior to the CMOS

Actually, some are...

, only that they like the images produced by (in their opinion think they're "superior") the D200 and by extension it's CCD.

I see. I'm not part of the club, so I cannot wear the emporer's new clothes. For that I am glad.

I'm afraid that I cannot see his fine new clothes, either.

Just because you aren't seeing what some others do doesn't mean it isn't there....only that you can't see it.

That's a great explanation, jimoyer.

But it doesn't wash. If it's there, it's identifiable and quantifiable.

Otherwsie, it's just hype. Like that fine suit of invisible clothes.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Trevor, since you keep going back to the Fairy "Story" (Fairy Tale, but perhaps that is a location thing) keep thing in mind......the people in the story who could see the emperor was naked were....well, everyone in the story.  The only person who couldn't see it was....well the emperor.

Given your insistence that everyone here is wrong because you can't see it, would you care to guess which you represent?

Stacey hit the nail on the head Trevor.  We aren't trying to convince you of anything.  I'm sure you're a nice guy and all but I ultimately could care less if you see what I do or not with the images produced by the D200.  I see it.  This thread is here for people who see that quality in the images it produces.  The title is "The Amazing D200" not "Trevor, the CCD is better than the CMOS".

Ultimately, you are considering purchasing one to see for yourself for whatever reason you've decided is important.  You're going to get a solid, well built, good performing camera.  It's not going to impress you in low light although I'm sure you'll produce some very usable images.  You'll either see the qualities we do in it's images or you won't but fortunately you won't be out much money either way.  In the mean time, I'll continue to use and enjoy mine, Stacey will continue to use her's...all the others who posted will continue to use theirs,  and 99% of us will forget who Trevor G, the Emperor is.  

 jimoyer's gear list:jimoyer's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D7100 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tidewater
Contributing MemberPosts: 688Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok here is what I like about "The Amazing D200".
In reply to PhotoKhan, Jul 23, 2013

White Ibis Early Light

It takes good pictures.

It snags large birds in flight with a very high keeper rate.

I prefer the small files. I re-size 95% of my shots anyhow.

I do wish it was a D300 (sometimes)

I do all this in bright sunshine, but any noise cleans up very well.

I spent a week with a D600 and it was nice but not that nice, considering the above, and i never got the focus working that well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads